Grenartia

Honestly, it should probably be prioritized highly, in order to meet the stated goal of making the game more compatible with less powerful systems.

Translation: "poor people should just buy more money"

Same. 1k parts is just a meme 99.99% of the time. Like, maybe if you're attempting a Jool 5 or grand tour or putting bootprints on Eve and returning, in a single launch, I could see it, but otherwise, there's no serious need for anywhere close to 1k parts on a single craft in KSP 1, and I would be shocked if that is any different for KSP 2.

I expected all of those purely graphical enhancements to be so optional that the game could still run well on my older desktop. I don't need "hyper realistic clouds", "terrain scatter" or "weather" to enjoy my space exploration game. And I've gotten by with KSP 1 graphics on the lower end of the settings for quite some time.

As someone with a PC with sub-minimum specs for the game (4th gen i5, 1050 Ti, but with 16GB of RAM), I'm down to contribute.

Yeah, I already knew that about the proprietary case and PSU (and even the mobo). I'm basically in the same boat as you, except if it doesn't run, I'll have to pay at least $1k to upgrade everything except my SSD.

1. It can be, but as has been pointed out, GPU-based physics in a game isn't to that point yet (and if it were, that would probably be some sort of selling point for the game). Besides, the actual CPU requirements aren't that onerous (the Athlon being quite low-tier). 2. Quite frankly, I don't give two excrements if there's clouds or not. I appreciate that implementing clouds well was likely an achievement for the devs, but they should be a purely optional experience, especially if they add that much burden to the game. IME, it is necessary panic, because at no time have I ever bought a game I didn't meet minimum requirements for that I was actually able to play until I got better hardware. Two games specifically: Kingdoms of Amalur Re-reckoning, and Elite: Dangerous. KoA would crash after only an hour at best, and E:D wouldn't load up at all, until I upgraded from integrated intel graphics to my current GPU (a 1050 Ti). I've had this card for less than a year, and don't have the money to "buy a new one". Furthermore, I've got a prebuilt Dell that doesn't support the extra power cable a more powerful (or recent) card would require, to say nothing of the power supply itself.

I'm not a developer, but that last sentence does make sense. What doesn't make sense is how the team has handled this. They coulld (and should) have told us "for X, Y, and Z reasons, on launch the minimum system requirements are [minimum requirements], and the recommended specs are [recommended specs]. We understand not many people currently have hardware that meets the minimum, but rest assured, we will endeavor to optimize the game before full release so that even people with [reasonably low-tier hardware that a significant portion of the current playerbase currently owns] can play the game." As it stands now, the current disclaimer only fuzzily implies that, but does not explicitly say that people with lower-performing hardware than the presently-listed minimums can expect to be able to play. Intercept has to correct that shortcoming. That may be, but you're missing the forest for the trees, because for the last half of that timeframe, almost nobody could get a 2060 even if they wanted it, and for most of the time before the GPU Crisis, a lot of people (myself included) didn't need anything other than integrated graphics, or at most, a 10 series, so we didn't go out of our way to get them. As a result of those factors, most people don't have a 2060 or better.

I don't think the team would be getting half as much crap if they would have made the specs make sense when they released them, and promised from the outset that lower-tier hardware (within reason) would be supported before full release.

Probably optional graphics stuff.

??? I know, but still. A 2060 for "1080p at low settings" seems like they're either doing GPU physics (which, given the Athlon isn't an amazing CPU is potentially the case), or "low" graphics is significantly better than most games I play. If the latter, then the devs should really consider adding even lower settings for those of us who want to play and don't care about super amazing visuals.

Honestly, I never *expected* my gameplay experience to look as flashy as it does in the teasers. I've been playing OG KSP on my 4th gen i5 for 7 years. Heavily modded, even (just without visual mods). It looked just fine, even on integrated graphics. I only just recently got a 1050 TI. I don't need or want to see every individual blade of grass at the KSC blowing in the wind, even at 1080p. As long as I can tell parts apart, and can tell who is Val and who is Jeb, and can tell whether my Ap is 60km or 88km, I don't care about graphics. What I do care about is better (and more accurate) physics performance, and new and improved features. Anything else is a luxury I can do without.

It caused a deorbit in the game that made me notice this.

If that's the case, why aren't more people experiencing this issue?

Has anyone fixed this? At this point, I'll take a modfix.

I'm actually unsure. Hopefully my @'ing them will help clear that up.

Its being maintained by @Lisias and @Drag0nD3str0yer

That would be great, yes. Thank you!

I posted about it here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/210229-orbital-decay-bug/

Yeah, I did. And yeah, that makes sense.

I'm noticing that at altitudes above 150km over Kerbin, the location of Ap and Pe along the orbit rapidly and randomly shift. Perhaps related?

Do you have fuel in it?

This might be useful in helping diagnose a stock bug I'm encountering. I'm curious, can this produce graphs for multiple craft simultaneously?

I haven't touched the settings for that in any way.

I only tested near 100k over Kerbin, but generally with enough margin of error that my Pe was below (something like 98-99km). So, I took a cue from you, and cheated a probe core into orbit. At the 86.750km circular orbit the cheat defaults to, orbital decay is constant and noticeable. Oddly, the orbital period remained fixed at a constant 31m, 42s. At 150km, I continued to observe decay behavior, again with a constant orbital period (in this case, 36m, 11s). I also did manage to find the "Orbital Drift Compensation" option. At best, it only reduces the issue, rather than correcting it. At worst, it does nothing at all. My testing on that front seems inconclusive.